University says former assistant football coach's claims he was wrongly fired and reputation tarnished aren't backed by Pa. law.

Penn State has asked a Centre County judge to throw out former football coach Mike McQueary's claims that the university wrongly fired him and damaged his reputation in the wake of the Jerry Sandusky sex-abuse scandal.

In court papers filed Tuesday, the university's lawyers argue that McQueary's claims aren't backed up by Pennsylvania law and aren't specific enough for Penn State to prepare a defense.

A former Nittany Lions quarterback, McQueary was a star witness in the June trial in which Sandusky was convicted of 45 counts related to the sexual abuse of children. Sandusky, 68, a retired Penn State football coach, is serving a 30- to 60-year state prison sentence.

McQueary, who worked as an assistant coach after graduating from Penn State, testified that he walked into a football locker room in February 2001 and saw Sandusky sexually assaulting a young boy.

After witnessing the assault, McQueary told head coach Joe Paterno, who in turn reported it to university Athletic Director Tim Curley and Vice President Gary Schultz. McQueary later met with Curley and Schultz and received their assurance that the situation would be handled appropriately, according to his lawsuit.

The suit contends that McQueary relied on assurances from Curley and Schultz, and as a result became associated with their alleged cover-up of Sandusky's crimes. Curley and Schultz, along with ex-Penn State President Graham Spanier, face charges they conspired to hide Sandusky's misconduct to avoid a scandal.

McQueary also alleges he was fired in retaliation for testifying before the grand jury that recommended charges against Sandusky. And he claims the university and Spanier damaged his reputation by casting doubt on the truth of his testimony after Curley and Schultz were charged in November 2011.

Penn State's court filing Tuesday argues that Spanier's statement on a university website simply reaffirmed Spanier's verbal statements to university staff about his faith in Curley's and Schultz's honesty and integrity.

"To arrive at an innuendo suggested by [McQueary] — i.e. that [McQueary] lied and committed perjury — a reader must take the statements concerning Curley and Schultz out of context and ascribe a meaning which contravenes the ordinary meaning a usage of the words," the university's filing says.

The university notes McQueary's claim that Curley and Schultz misrepresented facts when they said they would see that his allegation against Sandusky was investigated properly.

Additionally, the university argues that McQueary's reliance on Curley's and Schultz's statements was too far removed from the damage to his reputation and career more than a decade later to support a legal claim.

Penn State argues that McQueary's claim that he was fired because he cooperated with investigators should be dismissed because his suit doesn't make reference to the state law banning retaliatory firing.

While some employees can sue for wrongful termination without invoking the whistle-blower law, McQueary's contract with the university prevents him from taking that course of action, the university argues.

The university also claims the allegations in McQueary's suit do not amount to the type of conduct that would allow him to collect additional money as punishment for Penn State in addition to the financial losses he claims to have suffered.

In a decision last month, a Centre County judge denied Penn State's request to delay McQueary's suit while Curley, Schultz and Spanier are facing charges.